Transparency, law needed in killing citizens

Anwar al-Awlaki, according to U.S. officials, was dedicated to violent attacks against Americans and Americans interests.

Although an American citizen, Mr. al-Awlaki, the government said, was a senior al-Qaida recruiter and operations planner who spoke and preached to three of the 9-11 hijackers and terrorists.

He was also associated, the government said, with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who attempted the 2009 Christmas Day bombing of an American airliner.

When Mr. al-Awlaki was taken out by an American drone strike in Yemen on Sept. 30, 2011, the assassination raised very few eyebrows here, although the strike represented an unprecedented targeted killing of an American citizen.

But with drone strikes becoming a principal weapon in the Obama administration’s war on terror, increasingly more people are asking the president to explain his authority to target and kill American citizens.

U.S. Rep. James P. McGovern is among those who believe that the administration must be more forthcoming on its drone policy.

“I don’t think the president has the authority that he thinks he has, but regardless of that we still ought to have a policy governing the use of these lethal weapons that is codified and subjected to judicial review,” he said.

“We have independent studies that show that these strikes not only hit the bad guys but also kill a lot of innocent civilians, children included.

“And while I understand the need to protect our forces and our country, we have to be careful about making sure that we are not hurting innocent people.”

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama, in an effort to quell these rising concerns, provided the Congressional Intelligence Committees with classified documents outlaying what he believes to be his legal justification for targeting Americans citizens who are considered terrorists.

According to those documents, Mr. Obama believes he can legally go after American citizens when “an informed, high level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States, when capture is infeasible, and when the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.”

“This conclusion is reached with the recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal operation by the United State against a U.S, citizen, and also of the extraordinary seriousness of the threat posed by senior operational al’Qa’ida members and the loss of life that would result were their operations successful,” the documents read.

The president also believes he has both U.S. and international law on his side.

He noted, for example, that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the military may constitutionally use force against a U.S. citizen who is part of enemy forces.

Additionally, the president believes his action is authorized under the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force in the wake of 9-11.

Still groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, are challenging not only the administration’s authority to order the killing of American citizens, but the killing of anyone overseas.

According to Kade Crockford of the Massachusetts ACLU, Mr. Obama is wrong in suggesting that the AUMF justifies his authority to kill Americans without due process, or in assuming that he has the right to kill people in any country “without any sort of judicious process.”

“That (reasoning) is problematic, because the original AUMF only authorizes him to go after the people involved in planning and executing the 9-11 attack, and it is pretty clear that not all of those people killed in drone attacks have been involved with 9-11,” she said.

“This is not just about killing Americans. We need to pay attention to the other people who are being killed.”

According to Ms. Crockford, the administration has not clearly defined imminent threat or who qualifies as “an informed, high level official.”

“What we have is an unnamed executive acting as judge, jury and executioner,” she said.

“It is chilling and horrifying that we are allowing a high level official to make a list of those who will die without any judicial review.”

The use of drone strikes is and should continue to be an option for the president in going after terrorists.

But I am on the side of those who believe such operations should be conducted within U.S. and international law and with full transparency.